John Rose wrote: > Or (I don't know if it could be made to work, but it's worth thinking > about) method handles could interoperate more tightly with closures, by > having each individual method handle somehow take on the appropriate > function interface type.
I think this could lead to some kind of "handle explosion" where we have (too) many handles designed to take many differently-structured interface types. Too parametric? Obviously JRuby and Groovy take a very simple approach now, and require all closures be of a single type and its subtypes. If that were the idea you're talking about, where there's a single closure interface everyone could implement, it would probably be valuable for language implementers to more tightly interop...but I can't imagine it would be pretty from Java. - Charlie --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
